Parable: The Beraisa in the Mechilta compares this to a human king who had two sons, one younger and one older.

Parable (cont.): Upon entering his bedroom one evening, he instructed the younger one to arouse him at sunrise, whereas the older one he asked to wake him up after three hours.

Parable (cont.): When the younger son came to arouse his father at sunrise, the older one would not let him, since his father had instructed him to wake him up only after three hours. But the younger son insisted that he had said 'at sunrise'.

Parable (concl.): Meanwhile, as they stood there shouting at each other,their father awoke. 'My sons', he said to them, 'Since both of you had my honor in mind, I will not withhold your reward!'

Binyamin's Reward: What reward did the Tribe of Binyamin, who entered the Sea first, receive? The Shechinah resting in their portion, as the Pasuk states ... .

Yehudah's Reward: And what reward did Yehudah receive? They merited kingship, as the Pasuk says (in Tehilim) "Sarei Yehudah Rigmasam" ...

Proof: And "Rigmasam" generally means 'kingship', as the Pasuk writes in Daniel (5) "Bedayim amar Beltshatzar, ve'Hilbishu le'Daniel Arg'vana".

Where Was Levi: The Yerushalmi cites Rebbi Shimon, who says that just as Shimon all ascended the mountain, so too, did Levi.

Question: How do we then establish the current Beraisa?

Answer: With regard to the Kohanim who were Levi'im ...

Source: As Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: 'In twenty-four places the Kohanim are referred to as Levi'im, and the following is one of them - "And the Kohanim the Levi'im, the descendents of Tzadok" ' (Yevamos, 86b).

Question: The Gemara does not cite the Mishnah in Perek Sh'tei ha'Lechem (Menachos, Daf 96a) 'Aba Shaul says that that is where they placed the bowls of Levonah of the Lechem ha'Panim - with reference to the two Tefachim space in the middle (of the Shulchan).

Question (cont.): They said to him 'But did the Torah not say "And you shall place the pure frankincense 'on the row (of bread)'?

Question (concl.): To which he retorted that 'The Pasuk also says "And on him (the Tribe of Efrayim) was the Tribe of Menasheh?"?

Answer: Because the Beraisa specifically states 'al be'Samuch'.

Clarification: Now it appears that even Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yehudah, who argue there with Aba Shaul and say 'Al Mamash' ...

Support: And so it implies in 'ha'Kometz Rabah (Ibid, 27a) that wherever one can say 'al Mamash', we do ...

Support (cont.): Since Rebbi Yitzchak, who asks there what the Din will be regarding limbs that one placed beside the Ma'arachah (of wood)? Explains that according to those who hold 'al Mamash', there is no question, seeing as the Torah writes "al ha'Eitzim".

Clarification (cont.): Nevertheless, in our case everybody agrees that "al" is be'Samuch, and that those who blessed did not actually stand on Har Gerizim, and that those who cursed did not stand on Har Eival.

Yerushalmi: 'We might have thought that those on Har Gerizim said the B'rachos and those on Har Eival, the K'lalos; Therefore the Torah says "The B'rachos and the K'lalos" - both groups said the B'rachos and both groups said the K'lalos.

Yerushalmi (cont.): We might also have thought that those on Har Gerizim answered 'Amen' to the B'rachos, whilst those on Har Eival answered 'Amen' to the K'lalos; Therefore that Torah writes " ... and all the people will say 'Amen'. - Both groups answered 'Amen' after both the B'rachos and the K'lalos.

Yerushalmi: (concl.): What exactly did they do? When they said the B'rachos, they turned their faces (towards Har Gerizim) ... '.

Clarification (cont.): The Machlokes between Rebbi Yochanan and Resh who argue in Perek ha'Todah (Ibid. 78a) concerning 'Someone who Shechts a Todah inside the Azarah whilst the Loaves are outside the walls of Yerushalayim', as well as the Machlokes in Perek Tamid Nishchat (Pesachim, Daf 63b) concerning 'Someone who Shechts the Pesach when he has Chametz', is not connected with this Sugya.

Rebbi's Opinion: The Ri explains that even Rebbi concedes that generally, the word "al" Lechatchilah means literally 'on, and here is different, since it is is Gezeiras ha'Kasuv as Tosfos explained. And it is only Bedieved that he permits al be'Samuch.

Precedent: Similar to the case in Perek Sh'tei ha'Lechem (Menachos, Daf 92a), where Rebbi rules that, if one arranged two rows of seven Loaves each, one considers the top ons as if they were non-existent.

Precedent: And in answer to the query from the Pasuk "ve'Nasata al ha'Ma'areches Levonah", he replied that "al" means 'be'Samuch - and he follows his opinion, that "al" means 'be'samuch'.

Rebbi's Opinion: And in connection with the bowls of Levonah too, his reason is because "al" implies 'be'Samuch' that we say that "al" there too, means be'Samuch - Lechatchilah ...

Reason: Firstly, in order not to break the Loaves, and secondly, when one places the bowls beside the Loaves, it is not dignified before the King of Kings, ha'Kadosh-Baruch-Hu' ...

Support: Like we say in 'Kol ha'Menachos Ba'os Matzah' (Ibid. 52a) in connection with the two Lambs of Shavu'os, where the Torah writes "ve'Heinif ha'Kohen al Lechem ha'Bikurim - 'We might have thought that one actually places the lambs on top of the Loaves? Therefore the Torah writes "On the two Lambs" ...

Support (cont.): In that case, perhaps one needs to place the lambs on top of the lambs? Therefore the Torah writes " ... on the Loaves of the Bikurim".

Support (cont.): Rebbi Chachinai therefore said that one places the Loaves between the thighs of of the lambs and waves them (together), thereby fulfilling both Pesukim.

Support (cont.): Rebbi protested that 'Before a human king one would not do such a thing, how can one do it before the King of Kings?

Support (cont.): One therefore places on beside the other and waves them.

Conclusion: But don't we need "al"? Rav Chisda said to Rav Hamnuna (others say Rav Hamnuna to Rav Chisda) 'Rebbi follows his opinion, as we learned in a Beraisa ... '.

Yerushalmi: The Yerushalmi concludes as follows: 'And so Rebbi Shimon used to say - 'There is nothing in the Torah over which five hundred and seventy- six covenants were not made....

Yerushalmi: (cont.): Twelve with 'Baruch'. Tosfos does not know why twelve, but suggests that the number corresponds to the twelve tribes (one Baruch for each tribe), and twelve with 'Arur'.

Yerushalmi: (concl: Twelve bi'Chelal and twelve bi'Perat (that makes forty-eight covenants). 'to learn, to teach, to keep and to do' (that makes a hundred and ninety-two). Likewise at Har Sinai and again at Arvos Mo'av (making a total of five hundred and seventy-six covenants).

Question: Why does he (Rebbi Akiva) need to mention the third time at Arvos Mo'av, seeing as Rebbi Yishmael did not mention Arvos Mo'av at all?

Answer: He needed to mention it on account of the Seifa, where he says 'There is not a single Mitzvah ... '.

Question: We only know the Din of Arvus (responsibility for one another) with regard to the things that were said bi'Chelal and bi'Perat (on Har Gerizim and Har Eival). From where do we know the things that were said bi'Chelal but not bi'Perat (i.e. were not specified) there?

Answer: Citing Rebbi Yochanan in the name of Rebbi Yishmael he (it is not clear who) answered 'anything that was included in the K'lal ("Arur asher Lo Yakim es Kol Divrei ... ") and was mentioned independently to teach us something, it comes, not just for itself, but with reference to the entire K'lal'.

Question: He asked further that this was only said with regard to one P'rat, (but here where there are more than one P'rat it is like two Pesukim that come to teach us the same thing [Korban Eidah]).

Answer: Rebbi Tanchuma answered that since the Pasuk writes "Amen" at the end, it is considered like one P'rat.

Question: "(Cursed be the person) who does not uphold this Torah!" 'Since when is the Torah falling?'

Answer #1: Rebbi Shimon ben Elyakim answers that it refers to the 'Chazan' who lifts up the Torah (and does show it to everybody [Ibid.])

Answer #2: Rebbi Shimon ben Chalafta says 'This refers to the Beis-Din she'Lematah' ...

Support: As Rav Huna bar Yehudah said in the name of Shmuel 'On account of this thing Yoshiyahu rent his garments and declared "The onus lies on me to uphold it!" '.

Answer #3: Rebbi Acha in the name of Rebbi Tanchum b'Rebbi Chiya answered that 'If someone studied and taught, kept and performed, and is able to support others but does not, he is branded 'Arur'.

Answer #4: Rebbi Yirmiyah in the name of Rebbi Chiya b'Rebbi Aba explains that 'Someone who did not learn or teach, did not keep and did not perform, yet, despite the fact that he was unable to support others, he does, is included in "Baruch" '.

Support #1: Because Rebbi Chana Amar Rebbi Yirmiyah said that 'Hakadosh-Baruch-Hu will create a protective shade for the Ba'alei Mitzvos (i.e. those who support others who learn) in the shadow of those who study Torah, as the Pasuk writes in Koheles (7) "For in the shade of wisdom in the shade of money".

Support #2: And in Mishlei (3) it says "It is a tree of life to all who supports it".

Clarification: What he is saying is that according to Rebbi Shimon ben Yehudah each person in Yisrael took upon himself for the Taryag Mitzvos -17,754,080,000 plus 355,200 covenants for the 603,550 people on account of the Arvus should they contravene them.

Clarification (cont.): Whereas according to Rebbi in Rebbi Shimon they took upon themselves covenants totaling six hundred thousand, three thousand, five hundred and fifty times that number.

Refuted Explanation: Yerushalmi" 'We would have thought that they said all the K'lalos after finishing all the B'rachos ...

Conclusion: Therefore the Torah says "ha'B'rachah ve'ha'Kelalah" (in the singular) one Kelalah and one B'rachah.